DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Bocket No. 03527-08
20 duly 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 9 July 2009. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. As the Board was unable to obtain a
complete copy of your disability evaluation proceedings, it
velied on documents contained in your Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) file.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 24 July 2001.
You were released from active duty on 5 December 2002 and
transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) due
to a seizure disorder. You underwent a periodic physical
examination on 13 January 2006 and reported that you had not had
any seizures since December 2002. On 9 February 2006, the
Physical Evaluation Board {PEB) determined that your condition
remained unfitting, and that it was ratable at 20%. The PEB
apparently reconsidered and confirmed that finding on or about
25 April 2006. You were honorably discharged by reason of
physical disability on 12 May 2006 in accordance with the
approved findings of the PEB. In a rating decision dated 19
December 2006 the VA granted your request for service connection
for the seizure disorder and assigned a disability rating of 10%
to that condition.
In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your
disability was ratable at or above 30% disabling as of 12 May
2006, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in
your case. It noted that the issue of your entitlement to a
higher disability rating for any increase in severity of your
condition which may have occurred after you were discharged is a
matter within the purview of the VA rather than the Department
of the Navy. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
Executive Dil r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09521-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for numerous conditions that were not evaluated or rated by the PEB is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty, and you have not demonstrated that any of those conditions...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04018-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2009. The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA effective the day after you were discharged from the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06051-08
of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12280-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your condition was ratable at or above 30% disabling on the date of your discharge from the Navy, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08664-09
”A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. On 1 October 1996 the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reviewed that report of that examination and determined that you remained unfit | for duty due to a seizure disorder, which was ratable at 20%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00712
The medical record documents three major seizures in the first year of diagnosis, in November 2002, March 2003, and July 2003. VA treatment report on 20 November 2008, also stated last the major seizure was March 2008. The FPEB noted that the CI had another seizure in March 2008.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. The MEB established final diagnoses of metatarsalgia and gastroc equinus and recommended that your case be reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The Board concluded that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for eight conditions that were not rated by the PEB is not considered probative of the existence of error or...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00278
The PEB found the seizure disorder to be unfitting, code 8910, and recommended separation from the TDRL with a 10% permanent rating. Seizure disorder891040%10% COMBINED40%10% ______________________________________________________________________________ I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review Mr. XXXXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04090-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA assigned ratings to the lumbosacral strain and radiculopathy without regard to the issue of your fitness to reasonably perform military duty prior to your discharge, and that the rating you received for a mood disorder was based on your condition more than eighteen months after you were discharged from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07396-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application OR 22 August 2002. You also received multiple ratings of 0% and one of 10 % for The Board was not persuaded that your mood disorder was ratable above 30% disabling at the time of your permanent retirement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or...